Canceled Subscriptions

In service of democracy

Of all the expectations I had for these final weeks of the election, canceling two of my newspaper subscriptions wasn’t one of them.

I’ve always believed newspapers are essential to our democracy. I enjoy magazines, television, documentaries, and a host of newsletters, but nothing matches a print newsroom when it comes to journalism’s most essential job: holding power to account.

Newspapers serve local communities and shape national dialogues; at their best, when reporters are valued and supported, they act as daily checks of accountability. That’s why I’ve made it a point to subscribe to several publications.

Until a few days ago, that included The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. No longer.

By now, it’s probably old news to many of you that the billionaire owners of these storied newspapers overruled their editorial boards and decided not to endorse Kamala Harris for president. These decisions have sparked resignations and public backlash. They’ve also led subscribers like me to conclude that we can’t, in good conscience, support such brazen cowardice just when courage is needed most—especially from those who hold the ultimate privilege: wealth.

I’ve bristled at both of these papers before—just as I have at The New York Times—over coverage that feels unfair, unbalanced, or rife with false equivalence. In the case of The New York Times, where political coverage sometimes seems to mimic Republican talking points, I’ve been particularly frustrated with how candidates are covered and what’s deemed important. The treatment of Hillary Clinton in 2016 was shameful, as is much of the “sanewashing” of Trump. 

Yet I kept my subscriptions because I believed the overall work of these papers, flaws and all, outweighed their imperfections.

It is ironic that it was something from the editorial pages that finally pushed me over the line. I’m not a particular fan of these sections; I mostly don’t read them. I often find them to be echo chambers of conventional thinking—or worse, amplifiers of superficial pablum. There are many op-ed writers I’d gladly disarm of their keyboards.

Sure, there are voices I appreciate, and I’m not opposed to reading opinions—after all, I publish my own. But opinion writing is ubiquitous. What I truly value in these papers and want to support with my subscriptions is the work of investigative and beat reporters who uncover hard truths, expose corruption, and provide essential, new information to the public. They are the heroes in my book, and their work is often underappreciated by the public and the business models that govern these institutions.

So, why did I cancel my subscriptions?

Because this wasn’t about an endorsement. It was about what it says of these papers’ owners—and a troubling trend among oligarchs more generally. From silent acquiescence to, in the case of Elon Musk, unhinged cheerleading, some of the most powerful people in the world are conspiring in complicity to undermine our country and our democracy. And those of us who see it need to use whatever tools we have, starting with our votes, to push back against this darkness. A torrent of canceled subscriptions is one way of saying this is not okay. 

Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Post, and Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of The Los Angeles Times, are signaling something very, very dangerous. It is obvious to anyone who understands the news and cares about the United States that Donald Trump poses a grave danger to the future of the world. He cannot be trusted with power. I’m certain both papers would have articulated this in their endorsement of Harris, alongside discussions of her perceived weaknesses.

Once published, these endorsements would have faded into the background noise of the election, expected and quickly forgotten. I doubt they would have changed more than a handful of votes, if any.

Instead, two men of unimaginable wealth are making their own headlines by suggesting that if Trump is elected, the proper response is to stay silent and seek favor. Maybe they want their tax cuts. Maybe they hope for other financial benefits. Perhaps they want him to focus his wrath away from them. All of these explanations are unacceptable. I hope shame follows these two men, and I hope it comes in a world living under a Kamala Harris administration.

What gives me hope, however, is our current opportunity to reset our society around how we view wealth and power. We must understand the importance of a free press and protect it from cynical interventions. It’s crucial to let our fellow citizens and the larger world know what kind of behavior is acceptable and what is not. I believe we can take these shameful displays and turn them into inspiration for the changes we need to continue to make. 

It pains me to know that there are wonderful journalists at these papers who are even more outraged than I am about the actions of their bosses. I want to support them. But just as the staff at these papers who resigned understood, there are larger issues at play.

I will seek to reallocate my subscription money to journalistic institutions that truly grasp the motto of The Washington Post—that democracy dies in darkness.